Procedural outcomes of single versus double transeptal access for ablation of atrial fibrillation: Data from the NCDR Afib ablation registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transeptal puncture (TSP) is an obligatory step during catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no consensus regarding the utility for a single or double transeptal (TSP) access for CA of AF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate procedural outcomes and in-hospital complications (death, cardiovascular, neurological, peripheral vascular and pulmonary events) associated with CA of AF in patients undergoing single versus double TSP puncture using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). METHODS: Clinical characteristics and procedural outcomes of patients undergoing CA for AF between 2016 and 2024 were evaluated. Inverse probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) analysis was developed to adjust for confounding variables between TSP groups. RESULTS: A total of 212,345 patients were identified. Among patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) and non-paroxysmal AF (NPAF), single TSP was associated with comparable but lower risk of total procedural complications (PAF: 1.47% vs. 1.73%, OR:0.91, 0.88–0.93), (NPAF: 2.09% vs. 2.58%, OR:0.77 0.72–0.82), hospitalization > 1 day (PAF: 7.15% vs. 7.92%, OR:0.90, 0.87- 0.93), (NPAF: 10.41% vs. 12.13%, OR:0.84, 0.81–0.86) and a similar but higher likelihood of discharge in sinus rhythm (PAF: 95.55% vs. 95.17%, OR:1.09, 1.05–1.14) (NPAF: 93.37% vs. 92.31%, OR:1.17, 1.13–1.22) compared to double TSP technique. The incidence of stroke or TIA was not different between TSP groups. CONCLUSION: In a large AF ablation registry, single and double TSP use had similar procedural safety, and comparable likelihood of discharge in sinus rhythm. Single TSP use was not associated with embolism or cerebrovascular events. Operator preference and patient characteristics should be taken into consideration to define optimal TSP strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".